Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:13:26PM -0500, James Starkey wrote: > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 07:43:37PM -0500, James Starkey wrote: > > > Could you explain to us what optimization a are possible on 686 that > > > are not on

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:43:37 -0500, James Starkey wrote: > Could you explain to us what optimization a are possible on 686 that are > not on the 386? Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_instruction_listings#Added_with_80486 and go down. Instructions added (not all

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

29.12.2015 19:56, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > > Isn't it a good time to drop support of 20 years old processors and raise > -march value > from i386 to i686? Maybe I'm missing something, but I see in both v2.5 and v3.0: OPTIMIZE_FLAGS=-O3 -march=i586 -mtune=i686 -fno-omit-frame-pointer Dmitry

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:04:52 -0200, "Carlos H. Cantu" wrote: > Let's try to see the case from another angle: > > On Windows, Firebird 3.0 uses VC 2010 runtime. From MS site, the > minimum requirements of this runtime are: > > Windows XP SP3 (SP3 was released in 2008) >

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

30.12.2015 10:26, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something, but I see in both v2.5 and v3.0: > > OPTIMIZE_FLAGS=-O3 -march=i586 -mtune=i686 -fno-omit-frame-pointer You are right. I'm sorry. -- WBR, SD.

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

Putting aside the questions of when these instructions were added, under what circumstances could / would a compiler optimize something with a conditional move (cmov)? The new operations are supported by compiler intrinsics at best, but often require inline assembler. Even now, the cpuid

[Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

Hello, All. Isn't it a good time to drop support of 20 years old processors and raise -march value from i386 to i686? -- WBR, SD. -- Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:04:52PM -0200, Carlos H. Cantu wrote: > > Let's try to see the case from another angle: > > On Windows, Firebird 3.0 uses VC 2010 runtime. From MS site, the > minimum requirements of this runtime are: > > Windows XP SP3 (SP3 was released in 2008) > Computer with 900

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 07:43:37PM -0500, James Starkey wrote: > Could you explain to us what optimization a are possible on 686 that > are not on the 386? >From the top of my head, 386 doesn't even have any atomic cmpxchg or xadd instruction which rather complicates any lock or semaphore

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

Could you explain to us what optimization a are possible on 686 that are not on the 386? On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 29.12.2015 21:37, James Starkey wrote: > > Why? For all practical purposes they're the same architecture. There > is no

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

DS> 29.12.2015 21:37, James Starkey wrote: >> Why? For all practical purposes they're the same architecture. There is >> no upside to >> the project and only down side for users. DS>Using of i386 command set limits optimization possibilities for compilers. DS>And, frankly, can you

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

29.12.2015 21:37, James Starkey wrote: > Why? For all practical purposes they're the same architecture. There is no > upside to > the project and only down side for users. Using of i386 command set limits optimization possibilities for compilers. And, frankly, can you imagine that

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

Why? For all practical purposes they're the same architecture. There is no upside to the project and only down side for users. Go ahead and drop Apollo/Domain, with my blessings. On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: >Hello, All. > >Isn't it a

Re: [Firebird-devel] march switch in posix build for x86 architecture

Carlos H. Cantu wrote: > Anyway, I think the real question is: how much performance > increase this would bring, in real world environment? Do you > have this number? If you tell me +25%, I would vote to drop > i386 support :) Yep. This is it exactly. Like all optimisations: Work out what it